Comments for Climate Law Bloghttp://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange
Sabin Center for Climate Change LawFri, 09 Feb 2018 15:48:23 +0000hourly1Comment on Utilities’ Tax Cut Windfall: How Should They Spend Their ($4bn) Spare Change? by Romany Webbhttp://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2018/02/03/utilities-tax-cut-windfall-how-should-they-spend-their-4bn-spare-change/comment-page-1/#comment-1080450
Fri, 09 Feb 2018 15:48:23 +0000http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/?p=5522#comment-1080450You can find details of utilities’ tax cut windfalls in the quarterly financial disclosures they file with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
]]>Comment on Utilities’ Tax Cut Windfall: How Should They Spend Their ($4bn) Spare Change? by Steve Ericksonhttp://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2018/02/03/utilities-tax-cut-windfall-how-should-they-spend-their-4bn-spare-change/comment-page-1/#comment-1080449
Fri, 09 Feb 2018 05:44:30 +0000http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/?p=5522#comment-1080449Is there anywhere I can find how much different utilities will benefit from this? In Washington there is a strong push (including from state gov) to get the largest investor owned utility (PSE, owed by Australia investment bank Maquarrie) to close its ownership of Colstrip. This is responsible for about 37% of PSE’s power. Right now the state utilities commission is considering PSE’s “long range energy plan.” Rolling this into it seems ideal. Where can I find this info (benefit to particular utilities)?
]]>Comment on Utilities’ Tax Cut Windfall: How Should They Spend Their ($4bn) Spare Change? by Paul Walkerhttp://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2018/02/03/utilities-tax-cut-windfall-how-should-they-spend-their-4bn-spare-change/comment-page-1/#comment-1080447
Mon, 05 Feb 2018 22:38:07 +0000http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/?p=5522#comment-1080447Any state PUC that uses any of your recommendations is to be commended! Unfortunately, having worked with PUCs across the U.S. for two decades, I can tell you that the vast, vast majority will instead force utilities to cut rates immediately.
That decision is short-sighted, especially given the fact that developer contributions for asset costs are now taxable, and debt interest is now capped – meaning, growth won’t pay for growth, and higher cost equity will supplant lower cost debt and drive up utility rates in the future.
]]>Comment on 4 Things to Listen for in Monday’s Juliana Oral Argument by Curtis Morrisonhttp://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2017/12/08/4-things-to-listen-for-in-mondays-juliana-oral-argument/comment-page-1/#comment-1080428
Fri, 08 Dec 2017 20:20:18 +0000http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/?p=5349#comment-1080428Thanks for weighing in on Juliana v US!

For those who want to learn more or how to support Our Children’s Trust, the nonprofit that supports the 21 youth plaintiffs in this case, visit ourchildrenstrust.org. Follow @youthvgov & #youthvgov on Twitter for updates and livetweeting during the oral arguments.

]]>Comment on Transparency and ICAO’s Aviation Offsetting Scheme: Two Separate Concepts? – A New Sabin Center Working Paper by Aoife O'Learyhttp://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2017/11/08/transparency-and-icaos-aviation-offsetting-scheme-two-separate-concepts-a-new-sabin-center-working-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-1080419
Thu, 16 Nov 2017 16:19:08 +0000http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/?p=5275#comment-1080419In response to the comment by Dan I would agree that ICAO’s primary focus should absolutely be safety and security and in those committees the need to ensure that the experts are really technical experts is evident. However, when we are talking about environmental measures then there is less need for such restrictions and it also means that ICAO misses out on huge technical experts from around the world. Further, in terms of environmental decision-making, the Aarhus Convention provides for certain standards of public participation and transparency not upheld at ICAO. The Convention does not deal with safety and security issues for good reason – those discussions often should be private. However, if ICAO cannot adapt to an appropriate set of procedures to deal with environmental issues then perhaps those issues are best dealt with in another forum. As you rightly point out, the point of ICAO is to secure safety and security, protecting the environment is nowhere near one of ICAO’s main aims.

In response to Julestheski, I absolutely agree re the environmental integrity but sadly there was only so much time and space in this paper. Interesting take from California. The EU just decided to ban ‘bad offsets’ from the scheme entirely (and from 2020 won’t use all offsets at all).

]]>Comment on Transparency and ICAO’s Aviation Offsetting Scheme: Two Separate Concepts? – A New Sabin Center Working Paper by Danhttp://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2017/11/08/transparency-and-icaos-aviation-offsetting-scheme-two-separate-concepts-a-new-sabin-center-working-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-1080418
Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:14:14 +0000http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/?p=5275#comment-1080418I wonder if the author understands how the ICAO process works and the reasons for it.

First, ICAO’s primary focus is safety and security. Anything beyond safe and secure is frosting on the cake, so to speak. As a result, ICAO requires that people working in the technical working groups provide credentials proving their technical expertise. One might argue whether that’s necessary for environmental matters, but that point is that ICAO has a very good reason for only allowing experts in.

Second, and almost setting aside any arguments on whether technical experts actually should be required to be technical experts, ICAO does have transparency. The Standards and Recommended Practices that are developed by the technical working groups and approved within ICAO are submitted to States for comment and approval. So to repeat, whatever technical recommendations are created by ICAO all 191 ICAO Member States get to see them and comment on them.

So the article seems to miss the point a bit by saying that the process isn’t transparent. I don’t think that’s accurate, and I suspect that anyone with experience working at ICAO would agree with that.

]]>Comment on Transparency and ICAO’s Aviation Offsetting Scheme: Two Separate Concepts? – A New Sabin Center Working Paper by Julestheskihttp://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2017/11/08/transparency-and-icaos-aviation-offsetting-scheme-two-separate-concepts-a-new-sabin-center-working-paper/comment-page-1/#comment-1080417
Tue, 14 Nov 2017 09:29:48 +0000http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/?p=5275#comment-1080417Good paper on an important subject. However, it would be helpful to also focus on the environmental integrity of whatever the schemes is, not just how it is made. CORSIA is an offsetting scheme and as such need to demonstrate robustness and integrity. The CDM unfortunately was undermined partly because offsets were issued that should not have been. There was no effective way to remove these ‘bad offsets’ since the liability was placed on the verifiers who simply said they would not continue to verify if they had any liability imposed.

Fortunately the California scheme had the benefit of learning from the mistakes of CDM and has placed the liability for ‘bad offsets’ on the buyers or owner of those offsets. This means that offsets that are lacking in environmental integrity can be invalidated without undermining the wider market.

Unless CORSIA has such mechanisms to ensure the environmental integrity of the offsets being created, then the whole initiative will, quite rightly, fail.

]]>Comment on Scott Pruitt’s Attack on Scientists Serving on Advisory Boards Is Illegal by Peter D. Capenhttp://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2017/11/03/scott-pruitts-attack-on-scientists-serving-on-advisory-boards-is-illegal/comment-page-1/#comment-1080402
Sun, 05 Nov 2017 18:19:33 +0000http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/?p=5248#comment-1080402Why should the American public be at all surprised by the appalling actions by the head of EPA. any other Trump cabinet appointees, or Trump himself, for that matter. After all, it was the electorate that put Trump and the Republicans in office to do the damage to our society and health and safety laws they have enthusiastically embarked upon. And until the American voter turns his and her back decisively on Trump and the Republicans, neither law nor common sense will likely prevail. The wholesale damage now being done to American society will take decades to reverse, if ever.
]]>Comment on Feeling the Heat Down Under: New Report Urges the Australian Government to Adopt an Emissions Reduction Policy by Lockett McCullough Lawyershttp://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2017/06/15/feeling-the-heat-down-under-new-report-urges-the-australian-government-to-adopt-an-emissions-reduction-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-1080400
Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:27:27 +0000http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/?p=4895#comment-1080400I must agree that we as a nation need to look into the emissions issue because we do not want the next generations to suffer due to our shortsightedness.
]]>Comment on Can Fossil Fuel Companies Be Held Liable for Climate Change? by Jan Galkowskihttp://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2017/10/25/can-fossil-fuel-companies-be-held-liable-for-climate-change/comment-page-1/#comment-1080398
Thu, 26 Oct 2017 05:38:10 +0000http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/?p=5234#comment-1080398To me what’s interesting about this discussion is its theoretical tone. It is completely self-indulgent in accepting and embracing the machinations and arguments of United States judicial precedent, case law, and political rule making as the dominant reality. No doubt. This is, after all, a Climate Law Blog.

But, in reality, laws presently on the books, are costing the federal taxpayer dearly as well as being in an amount which is steadily increasing, not only via the compensations paid to storm and other impacted peoples to rebuild their homes and businesses, but also to municipalities to recreate utilities and utility services, and ultimately the reconstitution of Things As They Were.

So, while the courts and attorneys equivocate on culpability, the damages increase. That they are, in part, imposed by actions by peoples outside the USA jurisdiction does not qualify the severity of the damages and outbreaks experienced.

If extreme mitigation is not a policy, then it is clear the government is accepting the responsibility of who will be repaid for what, since they cannot claim in any way that they have been trying to minimize climate impacts as well as possible, given your location and streaming.